2003 (12) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned counsel for the parties. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an unregistered firm and the relevant assessment year is 1978-79. Saudagar Mal and Ram Lal are two partners of the firm. Both these partners filed their individual returns declaring their income from the firm and these returns were accepted by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Dehradun, under section 143(1) of the Incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Tribunal which dismissed the claim following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rodamal Lalchand v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 7. Thus, the question which arises in this case is whether the assessment of the assessee-firm was valid when two of its partners had already been assessed individually in respect of their shares in the income of the firm. It may be mentio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e paid because the income of the firm is not divided among the partners and hence the income tax slab is at a higher rate. In our opinion, there is no bar to assess an unregistered firm even after the individual partner is assessed. This is for two reasons: (1) As stated above, when a firm is unregistered the individual partners are not assessed on their share on the income of the firm vide ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arred vide Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC); Sidh Gopal Gajanand v. ITO [1969] 73 ITR 226 (All); Sunil Kumar v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 880 (Bom); Sohan Singh v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 174 (Delhi); CIT v. Cochin Co.(P.) Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 655 (Ker), etc. In ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239, the Supreme Court observed: "Under the present Act, the Income-tax Officer has no option like....